The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.l574 oF 2018 JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the Decree and Award dated t3.O4.2OlZ passed in M.V.O.P.No.L287 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- The Court of Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad, the respondents in the said M.V.O.p./APSRTC preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ injured fi1ed a petition under Secrion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, l ggg claiming compensation of Rs.20,O0,000/- along with interest and costs for the injuries sustained by her in a mo[or vehicle accident that occurred on 19.01.2013. It is stated by the petitioner/injured that on 19.01.2013 at about 3.30 p.M., when she was going by waik from her residence at Dayanandagar towards Iiialakpet Mahaboob Mansion Gunj and when reached opposite Malakpet Gunj, an APSRTC Bus Bearing No.Ap-29X_047O came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from Dilsukhnagar side and gave dash to the petitioner and ran over from her lef[ leg due to 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.1574 of 2018 which, she fell down and sus.LAl+ed grievous fracture injuries. Imrnediately, she was shifted to Yashoda Hospital at Malakpet, Hyderabad and was admitted as inpatient. It is stated by the petitioner/ injured that she sustained "crttsh injury left leg and foot u-tith circamferential deglouing injury and fracture of both bones of left leg and other muttiple injuies all ouer the bodg" and was discharged from the Hospital on 28.01 .2OI3 with the advice of regular fol1ow up treatment and had spent more than a sum of Rs.SO,OOO/- towards Medical bill and extra nourishment. Due to amputation of her left leg above knee, the petitioner was confined to bed. As such, the petitioner had engaged an attendant to look after her welfare and is paying a sum of Rs.6,00O/- per month.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Chaderghat Police Station registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2013 under Section 338 IPC. It is further stated by the petitioner that due to amputation of her left leg, she had lost her Teacher job in Dawn High School and lost her monthly income @ Rs.18,000/- and sustained irreparabie loss and therefore hled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,0O,000/- along with interest against the Respondents/ RTC.

5. Respondent Nos.1 & 2/RTC filed a common counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligence on part I l J .t E w I 3 MGP,.] MACMA.No.1574 of 2O18 of driver of crime vehicle, disability sustained by the petitioner and contended that the alleged accident occurred onty dr,re to the negligence on part of the petitioner while alighting from the bus and further contended that Police of Chaderghat Police Station booked a false case against the driver of the RTC Bus and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had flramed the following issues for conducting trial:- I 2 Wlrcther the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuies to the petitioner-M.Pramila, due to the rash and negligent driuing of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-292047O? Whether the petitioner is entitled to ana compensation? If so, at Luhat quantum and ttthat is the liabtlitg of the respondents? To what reliej?

7. Before the Tribunal, petitioner/ injured examined herself as PWl, got examined PWs2 to 4 and also got marked Exs.Al to A,9 on her behalf. On behalf of Respondents/RTC no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

8. After considering the evidence and documents available on \ IFCord, the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim petition by I l I I j l 4 MACMA.No.1s74 a|2018 awarding compensation of Rs.2.Q-75,200/- along with interest @ 9ok per annum from the date of petition tiil the date of realization payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeai is hled by the respondents in o.P./RTC. g. Heard Sri Kailakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC and Sri A.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the respondent/ injured. Perused the record.

10. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/ RTC while submitting his arguments, contended that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side i.e. @ 9o/o per annum instead of 7 .5%o per annum and hence, requested to reduce the same. 1 1. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/injured contended that the learned Tribunal after considering ail the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

12. Now the point that emerges for determination is, _ Whetlrcr the order passed bg the requires interference of this Court? leorned Tribunal MGP,J MACMA.No.1574 al2018 POINT:- 13. It is pertinent to state that though the learned .standing Counsel for appellant/RTC has urged as many as 10 grounds in the Appeal, but he has mainly focused his attention to the extent of awarding excess interest by the learned Tribunal for which learned counsel for the respondents did not raise any objection. However, a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal discloses that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had answered all the issues including, rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC Bus Bearing No.Ap-292-O4ZO.

14. In so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the iearned Tribunai, taking into consideration the age, income and disability sustained to her, had awarded compensation under different heads as detailed below:- S.No. Name of the Head 1 \ I 2 3 4 5 6 Loss of earnings Pain and sufferance Loss of amenities Medical expenditure Amount incurred towards cost of Artificial limb TOTAL Amount awarded Rs.15,O3,360/- Rs.3O,Oo0/- R.2s,OO0/- Rs. 16,841/- Rs.5,0O,000/ - Rs.2O,75,2O1 /- rounded Rs.2O,75,2Oo /- I 6 MACMA.No.1574 oJ 2018

15. Hence, the petitioner/injur-e-{ is awarded with an amount of Rs.20,75,200/- towards compensation. This Court hnds the said compensation to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

16. So far as interest on the compensation amount is concerned, as seen from the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal granted interest @ 9Vo per annum, which this Court considers it to be excessive and is inclined to interfere with the same by relying upon the decision of the Hon'bie Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersr and hereby reduces the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9o/o per annum to 7.5%o per annum.

17. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1574 of 2O18 frled by the appellant/ RTC is partly-allowed to the extent of interest part alone as indicated above. Except the said hnding, the hndings rendered by the learned Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain same. There sha11 be no order as to costs.

18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALr 3s //TRUE COPY// To,

1.. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims TribunaFcum-Cht Hyderabad (With records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri Kallakuri Srinivasarao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A S Narayana, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Sd/-MOHD. ISMAIL ISTANT RE SECTION OFFICER Judge, City Civil Court, ADK w HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 I k\E STArt- +( ,,':: '] ZtrPnM .i)| 11:. \.'..1- /.1_.r^ra i \_--:_i -.-;--- ({\ P L) JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.1574 ot 2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6,$4 ^&, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDER]qBAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1574 OF 2018 Between:

1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Tramsport Corporation, Rep. by its lr4anaging Director, RTC X Roads, Musheerbad, Hyderabad.

2. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot ltlanager, Vijayawada Bus Depot, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...Appel lants/Respondents AND M Pramila, Wo.M.Ashok Kumar, Aged 54 years, Occ Teacher, Rl/o 16-2-1 461612, Dayanand Nagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Award and decree in M.V.O.P.No.1287 ol 2013 dated. 13-04-2017 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUPetitioner This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kallakuri Srinivasarao, Advocate for the Appellarrts and of Sri A S Narayana, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil tVliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed by reducing the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7.5o/o per annum towards the total compensation award amount of Rs.20,75,200/- ;

2. That the findings of thb learned Tribunal shall remain same except to the extent of interest part alone as indicated above;

3. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and . *

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// ASSI Sd/-MOHD. ISMAIL T REGISTRAR To, CTION OFFICER 'l . The. Chairman, Ivlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil 2. Two CD Copies Court, Hyderabad ADK w HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 s, DECREE MACMA.N o,1574 ot 2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I^ coPYar #"